Rationale
Governments base their legislation on evidence, such as scientific studies and clinical guidelines. However, research in occupational therapy often scores low when critically appraised for its methodology. This is partly due to the nature of the profession. A weak assessment of the methodology in occupational therapy studies may lead to underestimating the significance of our profession.
Objectives
To identify common methodological problems in occupational therapy research and highlight points of attention to anticipate low scores on critical appraisals.
Methods
In the context of guideline development and systematic reviews, occupational therapy studies were critically assessed using standardized tools such as the AMSTAR checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB2), and the critical appraisal tools of SIGN and JBI. Weaknesses in the methodological field were mapped, and proposals for improvement were formulated.
Results
Approximately one hundred occupational therapy studies were appraised using mainly the RoB2 and SIGN-RCT tools, as well as the AMSTAR and JBI checklists for quasi-experimental studies. Frequently identified weaknesses in effect studies included biases arising from the randomization process, weak control group determination, and biases in outcome measurement. In reviews, common weaknesses included lack of reporting, such as missing data in the protocol and unclear descriptions of interventions.
Conclusion
Occupational therapists can anticipate weak methodological assessments by conducting state-of-the-art research with particular attention to reporting. When writing research protocols, we can address the inherent weaknesses of the intervention by anticipating these limitations and indicating how we will mitigate them to minimize their impact.
By striving together for rigorous research, occupational therapists present their profession as valuable and evidence-based with impact on both policy and the professional field.